Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Friday, June 12, 2009
PHOENIX -- Saying they are working to prevent socialism, members of the state House voted 34-19 Thursday to ask voters to block the federal government from forcing Arizonans to enroll in any universal health care program.
"We are a front-line battle state to stop the momentum of this powerful government takeover of your health care decisions,' argued Rep. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, the sponsor of the measure.
"Health care by lobbyists thwarts your rights and can be stopped here.'
[
As a Arizona resident I applaud our state house for sending a message that Arizona doesn't want an intrusive Federal Govt. managing healthcare. I had posted this in another thread and thought it worth starting a thread topic on, as it shows that some states know best whats best for themselves as far as whats best for it's citizens. Arizona is attempting to do the same thing with the Forced Unionization bill comming soon. In that Arizona will assert it's right as a "right to work state". I think it's telling when states have to start asserting their rights to a Federal Govt. that has not idea that providing healthcare to the entire nation is something that it's not constitutionally allowed to do..
Don't forget to shut down them thar public school systems and close all of the libraries too. Gotta get rid of ALL that thar socialism.Don't forget " social security" Yer granny can get off her lazy ass and get a job and be a real Amurkin !.
BTW . I like that Nazi avatar.
Idiots..................
Navy has a Nazi Avatar?....Navy do you have a Nazi Avatar that only this meatball can see?.....
While the majority of significant health care reform bills that have ... Opposition to individual mandates led to Proposition 101, on the ballot in Arizona this past November. ... The proposition was narrowly defeated, 50.2% to 49.8%...... So before everyone you start comparing this to statements about secession, make sure you understand what this bill is about. It is about CHOICE, free to choose your own Doctor health insurance coverage without Govt. mandates. I would remind all you democrats that support this "public option" and call youself liberal to re-examine what that word means. As a reminder I though maybe I would post the definition for you....
ADJECTIVE: 1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. liberally, liberalness....
choice (chois) KEY
NOUN:
The act of choosing; selection.
The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
One that is chosen.
A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
The best or most preferable part.
Care in choosing.
An alternative
I submit to you by favoring a Govt. program that limits peoples right to choose, you go against the very principles that you represent.
While the majority of significant health care reform bills that have ... Opposition to individual mandates led to Proposition 101, on the ballot in Arizona this past November. ... The proposition was narrowly defeated, 50.2% to 49.8%...... So before everyone you start comparing this to statements about secession, make sure you understand what this bill is about. It is about CHOICE, free to choose your own Doctor health insurance coverage without Govt. mandates. I would remind all you democrats that support this "public option" and call youself liberal to re-examine what that word means. As a reminder I though maybe I would post the definition for you....
ADJECTIVE: 1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. liberally, liberalness....
choice (chois) KEY
NOUN:
The act of choosing; selection.
The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
One that is chosen.
A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
The best or most preferable part.
Care in choosing.
An alternative
I submit to you by favoring a Govt. program that limits peoples right to choose, you go against the very principles that you represent.
Well Navy, the government option or the coop option is only ONE means out of the MANY choices that the government is offering on the whole.
The gvt is saying the private insurance option gotten through your job or through yourself is a choice of yours along with the option to buy in to the gvt managed plan....there are choices being offered and no one is forced in to the gvt or coop option.
The many varying private insurance companies out there are NOT being excluded but included in the government's plan of reform along with an option to buy in to s single payer plan, where there is no insurance company middle man taking their cut, and paying the doctors/hospitals directly.
Maybe you answered this Navy, but what is it that you are afraid of with an OPTION to choose a gvt managed plan verses a private insurance managed plan?
Do you think the government managed plan will cost less, thus running the private plans out of town?
If this is the case, then what is it that makes you against us paying less for our healthcare?
If it is not this, then what is it that you are against with having this OPTION for those that do NOT want to deal with Insurance companies, even if it means less coverage if that is what it turns out to come with?
This is an OPTION, for me and you to choose from...WHY would YOU FORCE someone like me, who may NOT want to deal with Insurance companies ever again in my life, in to only having private insurance as my choice of coverage, why wouldn't you allow me the OPTION to buy in to a plan that does not include the Insurance companies?
WHY ARE YOU AGAINST CHOICE? Why are you so dead set against Giving me and others who may feel like my example above, a CHOICE to opt out of a health care plan that includes the Insurance Company middle man?
To me, having the public OPTION is CHOICE, is freedom of choice, and not including a public option or a coop option IS NOT CHOICE.
I don't want to force anyone out of their own choice...if they are happy with the Insurance companies and the insurance they have, then by all means please let them have the choice of choosing their favored company...
but for YOU to tell ME that I MUST go in to a plan with the insurance companies if I want any kind of health care coverage, and then post a post like the one you did above, implying that having a gvt option of not going through the insurance companies... if some of us wish....is not an OPTION but some sort of restriction is really a bit of twisting and turning on your part, don't you think?
Maybe I misunderstood your position...?
Care
While the majority of significant health care reform bills that have ... Opposition to individual mandates led to Proposition 101, on the ballot in Arizona this past November. ... The proposition was narrowly defeated, 50.2% to 49.8%...... So before everyone you start comparing this to statements about secession, make sure you understand what this bill is about. It is about CHOICE, free to choose your own Doctor health insurance coverage without Govt. mandates. I would remind all you democrats that support this "public option" and call youself liberal to re-examine what that word means. As a reminder I though maybe I would post the definition for you....
ADJECTIVE: 1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. liberally, liberalness....
choice (chois) KEY
NOUN:
The act of choosing; selection.
The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
One that is chosen.
A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
The best or most preferable part.
Care in choosing.
An alternative
I submit to you by favoring a Govt. program that limits peoples right to choose, you go against the very principles that you represent.
Well Navy, the government option or the coop option is only ONE means out of the MANY choices that the government is offering on the whole.
The gvt is saying the private insurance option gotten through your job or through yourself is a choice of yours along with the option to buy in to the gvt managed plan....there are choices being offered and no one is forced in to the gvt or coop option.
The many varying private insurance companies out there are NOT being excluded but included in the government's plan of reform along with an option to buy in to s single payer plan, where there is no insurance company middle man taking their cut, and paying the doctors/hospitals directly.
Maybe you answered this Navy, but what is it that you are afraid of with an OPTION to choose a gvt managed plan verses a private insurance managed plan?
Do you think the government managed plan will cost less, thus running the private plans out of town?
If this is the case, then what is it that makes you against us paying less for our healthcare?
If it is not this, then what is it that you are against with having this OPTION for those that do NOT want to deal with Insurance companies, even if it means less coverage if that is what it turns out to come with?
This is an OPTION, for me and you to choose from...WHY would YOU FORCE someone like me, who may NOT want to deal with Insurance companies ever again in my life, in to only having private insurance as my choice of coverage, why wouldn't you allow me the OPTION to buy in to a plan that does not include the Insurance companies?
WHY ARE YOU AGAINST CHOICE? Why are you so dead set against Giving me and others who may feel like my example above, a CHOICE to opt out of a health care plan that includes the Insurance Company middle man?
To me, having the public OPTION is CHOICE, is freedom of choice, and not including a public option or a coop option IS NOT CHOICE.
I don't want to force anyone out of their own choice...if they are happy with the Insurance companies and the insurance they have, then by all means please let them have the choice of choosing their favored company...
but for YOU to tell ME that I MUST go in to a plan with the insurance companies if I want any kind of health care coverage, and then post a post like the one you did above, implying that having a gvt option of not going through the insurance companies... if some of us wish....is not an OPTION but some sort of restriction is really a bit of twisting and turning on your part, don't you think?
Maybe I misunderstood your position...?
Care
My position is actually very simple Care, first I think that healthcare costs are too high for some and those with pre-existing conditions have difficulty getting medical coverage because they are refused or in the case of those that want it they simply cannot afford it because it is too expensive. I believe that those costs can be brought under control by allowing, people to form co-ops to purchase group coverage and as they form these co-ops they will set the rules of how they are insured i.e. pre-existing conditions.
First, let me say that I appreciate your response Navy!
-Health care costs are too expensive FOR EVERYONE, that is not considered wealthy, not just for those with preexisting conditions.
-Coops taking on all the people with preexisting conditions while leaving the healthy for only the Insurance companies or the majority of the healthy for only insurance companies to benefit, will NOT help those people with preexisting conditions because the price of the coop policy of this sort will be TOO COSTLY.
-If only those with preexisting medical conditions get thrown on to a government run program like medicare, it will be too costly as well.
Why shouldn't ALL insurance companies cover those with medical conditions at a reasonable price? Why have the insurance companies, been able to throw out the very people that need the insurance in the first place just so they can be MORE profitable? The Insurance companies did this with every senior out there...denied them coverage, because the seniors actually needed medical care, after their 20-40 years of paying insurance and being healthy and making the insurance companies rich.
The insurance companies FORCED congress to institute our social program of MEDICARE and they would be doing the same thing now to push off those who need coverage because of preexisting conditions off on to the gvt or the coop....WHICH IS what is going to bankrupt our government.
it is my understanding that coops or gvt plans are needed in states with rural areas that do not have multiple insurer coverage, where there is no competition to keep prices down?
I also believe that costs can be brought down with the advent of competetion in the market place that rushes to meet the demand of those co-ops. Further, I believe that insurance companies can be regulated to the point where they should as a part of offering benefits from state to state, offer low cost health insurance to those that cannot afford it.
How are these coops going to be instantaneously formed? Do the patients really know enough to form and run and negotiate with hospitals and doctors, a Coop for themselves?
I agree that more has to be done, to allow insurance companies to operate from state to state, but i am not certain how the federal government should do this without usurping the Rights of the States?
-Why do states only allow certain insurance companies to operate in their states? What is it that they felt was important to their citizens that certain insurance companies REFUSE to do, which makes them inelligible to operate in the State?
What protections would the State citizens be giving up in order to give the federal government power in this kind of regulating?
One more thing that can be done is the Govt. can offer through grants or low costs loans compaines wishing to offer health insurance to low income and high risk people and act much in the same was as the VA does on a VA home loan. In that they would back the health insurance with the full faith and credit of the US Govt. but that is all.
The insurance companies have said they can reduce the cost of ALL health care policies by about 20-25% if they cover ALL people with insurance, that do not have insurance now. I believe this is part of the deal with Obama?
This means, they have used their actuaries and calculated the risks with costs and they figured that another 20-30 million people that are fairly healthy (because the elderly are being covered by medicare and for the most part, many younger, healthier people are uninsured) with an insurance policy would still make them more profitable than they are now, even with reducing the price of everyones health care insurance policy by 20-25%. This is the guts of Obama's plan....get everyone covered, then there will not be the huge emergency room costs put back on to the government or put on to the Hospital who puts the costs on to the health care insurance policies of those that have them....at least that is the simple explanation...
Other things that can be done to bring down costs are to reform patents that drug companies get on medicines. When a company becomes the sole source for a medicine for a period of time they can charge whatever they wish. However, if a patent is issued that requires them to offer as a provision of the patent a percentage of that drug to low income people that is another step to make it more available to people.
I agree, and this has been a problem for a while....and it is not that the patents protect the drug companies for a while, which they should, but the problem is that these companies file for EXTENSIONS of their patents and extend their patends for 5 to 20 years through these extensions as well. This is something that could have been addressed the past decade but the drug companies are huge campaign donors to congressmen.
One more thing that can bring costs down, is tort reform , do something about the rising costs of law suits and their impact on the Doctors and Hospitals.
Yes, some sort of tort reform needs to take place, but the true root of the problem are the handful of doctors that have committed multiple medical malpractices while continuing to be licenced by the AMA, which brings the price of all medical malpractice insurance on to all the good doctors to an unreasonable cost. Get rid of the BAD, REPEATEDLY DEFICIENT, doctors who continually commit malpractice and isurance prices would go down as well.
A small investment of our government in paying for a portion of the medical school costs for more students to become Doctors would do a great deal for reducing medical costs as well.... we do not have enough doctors to service the baby boomers that are coming in to their sickly years let alone the rest of society so this is giving a SHORTAGE on SUPPLY compared to the demand...thus higher prices for everything.
Still more, the costs of Illegal Immigrant Healthcare.
there is a cost to covering the health care of illegals, but we will not deny them this health care if they are sick...because that would be INHUMANE...so the problem with the illegal's health care costs can only be solved by not having illegals.
There are many solutions care to this problem that the Govt. can play a central role in. It's my opinion that rather than fix the problems that cause the costs to rise the Govt. is looking for a one off soultion for everyone that THEY will manage.
I agree. I think there is a rush for a solution to one of the biggest problems we have....
I don't like it one bit...it's too bad that the republicans and dems don't take their time and really think and analyze this through to the end results, with actuaries for the numbers and those with insight on the possible scenarios that could come from every change they want to make.
I can assure you, if the "public option" is approved it will not lead to what people expect it to lead to. Yes, people will be covered. However, it will not do a thing about tort reform, or Illegal Immigrant healthcare and therefor NOT change the high costs of healthcare one bit. There are may problems with a "public option" not the least of which is it's blantent unconstitutionality.
What EXACTLY do you suggest doing about the healthcare of illegals? Not provide any? How is having them pay for the gvt option or for a health insurance policy, going to hurt things?
Other problems include, while meeting the goal eventually of coverage for all you eventually lead to lower quality care. I can literally point you to 1000's of cases where this has been tried. We have the best example of this in Medicare which is basically insolvent and the funny thing about that is the proposal aims to pay for itself by cutting payments to Doctors who accept Medicare by an additional 20 plus percent.
If the INSURANCE companies had not lobbied congress to develop medicare so that they did not have to cover people when they got old and sick is where the problem began, and now we are stuck with it.....if the gvt were carrying the healthcare of ALL citizens then it would have a larger pool of HEALTHY and sick and this would make things cheaper for the government and all of us overall...but NONE of you want this and want the insurance companies to take their cut of profits....while putting the sole burden of the UNhealthy on to the gvt, us tax payers...
I don't want to see the quality of our health care reduced which is happening as we speak as well, and there certainly are ways to keep this from happening, if the time and will, are put in to it, like increasing the number of doctors and nurses so that we are not so short, in a time where we really need them.
The bottom line here Care is this, I think that this healthcare issue can be solved with hard work and a good honest and sensible approach at fixing ALL the problems that cause healthcare costs to rise making it unaffordable. Rather than demonizing industries, and advocating the take-over of yet another American private sector enterprise .
Well what the heck has TAKEN SO LONG to do these reforms if they are so necessary Navy, where the heck were the Republicans the 12 years they were in control of congress? Where the heck were these INSURANCE companies the past decade or two, why couldn't they reform themselves with the public's interest in mind? Huh?
One more thing for you to consider here too Care, what you and others are advocating is this. you wish a "public option" which the Govt. will run which in turn will steer you to a private insurer anyway,you realize that don't you? So what you are proposing is to put an entity between yourself and your insurer and your Doctor that also regulates other insurers all so that we can "level the playing field".
Why would it steer us to an insurance policy instead of it being like a Medicare plan?
I hate to be contrary here, but you do know that healthcare is not a RIGHT and if you wish it to be then perhaps what you and others are proposing should be approached as a constitutional issue then you would have no problems with me. Until that time though Care, I would rather advocate for the ability of Americans to have insurance if they want it, fix the REAL issues that cause healthcare costs to rise, and NOT have it if they don't !!
Then we don't have a constitutional RIGHT to medicare or Social security or a permanent standing Army either, according to our constitution right?
I think people should have the ability to buy a Health Insurance policy they can AFFORD, but this simply is not the case....and more and more people, million or more each year, get their health insurance policy cancelled because their employers can no longer afford to pay their portion of these outrageous costs for it....
by the way, did you support Senator Kerry's health care proposal? Because you are advocating HIS PLAN....just an fyi for ya!
Care
if the left does it too Mr.Mayor.....how come you are only bad mouthing the right?....i thought you said that unlike all these "RIGHTIES" here, that you are fair and balanced?....Bobo speak with forked tongue?...Anyways, so now that we have the majority, you guys are going to tie everything we do up in court for years and get your way because you stacked the deck. I wish you guys would stop with these frivilous lawsuits. How much are you costing the tax payers with these TRIAL LAWYERS and these judges that legislate from the bench.
Yes, judges lean left and right too believe it or not.
if the left does it too Mr.Mayor.....how come you are only bad mouthing the right?....i thought you said that unlike all these "RIGHTIES" here, that you are fair and balanced?....Bobo speak with forked tongue?...Anyways, so now that we have the majority, you guys are going to tie everything we do up in court for years and get your way because you stacked the deck. I wish you guys would stop with these frivilous lawsuits. How much are you costing the tax payers with these TRIAL LAWYERS and these judges that legislate from the bench.
Yes, judges lean left and right too believe it or not.
Whatever stupid. Just keep arguing for the private healthcare providers and see your rates go up 191% in the next 4 years, jackass.
Now I want rates to go up. I want it to be unaffordable for you Harry. You are too stupid to deserve healthcare.
And when you are either denied care or when you have to sell your home to pay for the care you got, you'll only be able to blame yourself Harry balls, because YOU are responsible for YOU.
I'll be alright. I make a lot of money. I did care about broke asses like you but no longer. I'm turning over a whole new leaf. And FUCK the Democrats. I'm emailing Obama/Pelosi/Reed that right now. FUCK YOURSELVES YOU SCANDALOUS SELLOUTS. Don't worry about Harry. He's not gonna live forever anyways. And if there is no profit in dealing with Harry, don't waste our tax dollars on things that do not give a ROI. Giving you healthcare is like throwing money away Harry. What do we get back from helping you? Not enough. SO fuck it.
Well Navy, the government option or the coop option is only ONE means out of the MANY choices that the government is offering on the whole.
The gvt is saying the private insurance option gotten through your job or through yourself is a choice of yours along with the option to buy in to the gvt managed plan....there are choices being offered and no one is forced in to the gvt or coop option.
The many varying private insurance companies out there are NOT being excluded but included in the government's plan of reform along with an option to buy in to s single payer plan, where there is no insurance company middle man taking their cut, and paying the doctors/hospitals directly.
Maybe you answered this Navy, but what is it that you are afraid of with an OPTION to choose a gvt managed plan verses a private insurance managed plan?
Do you think the government managed plan will cost less, thus running the private plans out of town?
If this is the case, then what is it that makes you against us paying less for our healthcare?
If it is not this, then what is it that you are against with having this OPTION for those that do NOT want to deal with Insurance companies, even if it means less coverage if that is what it turns out to come with?
This is an OPTION, for me and you to choose from...WHY would YOU FORCE someone like me, who may NOT want to deal with Insurance companies ever again in my life, in to only having private insurance as my choice of coverage, why wouldn't you allow me the OPTION to buy in to a plan that does not include the Insurance companies?
WHY ARE YOU AGAINST CHOICE? Why are you so dead set against Giving me and others who may feel like my example above, a CHOICE to opt out of a health care plan that includes the Insurance Company middle man?
To me, having the public OPTION is CHOICE, is freedom of choice, and not including a public option or a coop option IS NOT CHOICE.
I don't want to force anyone out of their own choice...if they are happy with the Insurance companies and the insurance they have, then by all means please let them have the choice of choosing their favored company...
but for YOU to tell ME that I MUST go in to a plan with the insurance companies if I want any kind of health care coverage, and then post a post like the one you did above, implying that having a gvt option of not going through the insurance companies... if some of us wish....is not an OPTION but some sort of restriction is really a bit of twisting and turning on your part, don't you think?
Maybe I misunderstood your position...?
Care
First, let me say that I appreciate your response Navy!
-Health care costs are too expensive FOR EVERYONE, that is not considered wealthy, not just for those with preexisting conditions.
-Coops taking on all the people with preexisting conditions while leaving the healthy for only the Insurance companies or the majority of the healthy for only insurance companies to benefit, will NOT help those people with preexisting conditions because the price of the coop policy of this sort will be TOO COSTLY.
-If only those with preexisting medical conditions get thrown on to a government run program like medicare, it will be too costly as well.
Why shouldn't ALL insurance companies cover those with medical conditions at a reasonable price? Why have the insurance companies, been able to throw out the very people that need the insurance in the first place just so they can be MORE profitable? The Insurance companies did this with every senior out there...denied them coverage, because the seniors actually needed medical care, after their 20-40 years of paying insurance and being healthy and making the insurance companies rich.
The insurance companies FORCED congress to institute our social program of MEDICARE and they would be doing the same thing now to push off those who need coverage because of preexisting conditions off on to the gvt or the coop....WHICH IS what is going to bankrupt our government.
it is my understanding that coops or gvt plans are needed in states with rural areas that do not have multiple insurer coverage, where there is no competition to keep prices down?
How are these coops going to be instantaneously formed? Do the patients really know enough to form and run and negotiate with hospitals and doctors, a Coop for themselves?
I agree that more has to be done, to allow insurance companies to operate from state to state, but i am not certain how the federal government should do this without usurping the Rights of the States?
-Why do states only allow certain insurance companies to operate in their states? What is it that they felt was important to their citizens that certain insurance companies REFUSE to do, which makes them inelligible to operate in the State?
What protections would the State citizens be giving up in order to give the federal government power in this kind of regulating?
The insurance companies have said they can reduce the cost of ALL health care policies by about 20-25% if they cover ALL people with insurance, that do not have insurance now. I believe this is part of the deal with Obama?
This means, they have used their actuaries and calculated the risks with costs and they figured that another 20-30 million people that are fairly healthy (because the elderly are being covered by medicare and for the most part, many younger, healthier people are uninsured) with an insurance policy would still make them more profitable than they are now, even with reducing the price of everyones health care insurance policy by 20-25%. This is the guts of Obama's plan....get everyone covered, then there will not be the huge emergency room costs put back on to the government or put on to the Hospital who puts the costs on to the health care insurance policies of those that have them....at least that is the simple explanation...
I agree, and this has been a problem for a while....and it is not that the patents protect the drug companies for a while, which they should, but the problem is that these companies file for EXTENSIONS of their patents and extend their patends for 5 to 20 years through these extensions as well. This is something that could have been addressed the past decade but the drug companies are huge campaign donors to congressmen.
Yes, some sort of tort reform needs to take place, but the true root of the problem are the handful of doctors that have committed multiple medical malpractices while continuing to be licenced by the AMA, which brings the price of all medical malpractice insurance on to all the good doctors to an unreasonable cost. Get rid of the BAD, REPEATEDLY DEFICIENT, doctors who continually commit malpractice and isurance prices would go down as well.
A small investment of our government in paying for a portion of the medical school costs for more students to become Doctors would do a great deal for reducing medical costs as well.... we do not have enough doctors to service the baby boomers that are coming in to their sickly years let alone the rest of society so this is giving a SHORTAGE on SUPPLY compared to the demand...thus higher prices for everything.
there is a cost to covering the health care of illegals, but we will not deny them this health care if they are sick...because that would be INHUMANE...so the problem with the illegal's health care costs can only be solved by not having illegals.
I agree. I think there is a rush for a solution to one of the biggest problems we have....
I don't like it one bit...it's too bad that the republicans and dems don't take their time and really think and analyze this through to the end results, with actuaries for the numbers and those with insight on the possible scenarios that could come from every change they want to make.
What EXACTLY do you suggest doing about the healthcare of illegals? Not provide any? How is having them pay for the gvt option or for a health insurance policy, going to hurt things?
If the INSURANCE companies had not lobbied congress to develop medicare so that they did not have to cover people when they got old and sick is where the problem began, and now we are stuck with it.....if the gvt were carrying the healthcare of ALL citizens then it would have a larger pool of HEALTHY and sick and this would make things cheaper for the government and all of us overall...but NONE of you want this and want the insurance companies to take their cut of profits....while putting the sole burden of the UNhealthy on to the gvt, us tax payers...
I don't want to see the quality of our health care reduced which is happening as we speak as well, and there certainly are ways to keep this from happening, if the time and will, are put in to it, like increasing the number of doctors and nurses so that we are not so short, in a time where we really need them.
Well what the heck has TAKEN SO LONG to do these reforms if they are so necessary Navy, where the heck were the Republicans the 12 years they were in control of congress? Where the heck were these INSURANCE companies the past decade or two, why couldn't they reform themselves with the public's interest in mind? Huh?
Why would it steer us to an insurance policy instead of it being like a Medicare plan?
I hate to be contrary here, but you do know that healthcare is not a RIGHT and if you wish it to be then perhaps what you and others are proposing should be approached as a constitutional issue then you would have no problems with me. Until that time though Care, I would rather advocate for the ability of Americans to have insurance if they want it, fix the REAL issues that cause healthcare costs to rise, and NOT have it if they don't !!
Then we don't have a constitutional RIGHT to medicare or Social security or a permanent standing Army either, according to our constitution right?
I think people should have the ability to buy a Health Insurance policy they can AFFORD, but this simply is not the case....and more and more people, million or more each year, get their health insurance policy cancelled because their employers can no longer afford to pay their portion of these outrageous costs for it....
by the way, did you support Senator Kerry's health care proposal? Because you are advocating HIS PLAN....just an fyi for ya!
Care
Where to start with all that. *laughs* well first let's start from the bottom, no you don't have a "right" in the constitution to healthcare and in fact social security and medicare are not constitutional. What makes them able to skirt by it is the fact that they are seen as forms of "taxes" to promote the general welfare. You know and I know Care that an Army is expressed in the constitution and healthcare is not. In fact the only people entitled to healthcare under the constitution are prisoners.
The constitutional basis of the Social Security Act was uncertain. The basic problem is that under the “reserve clause” of the Constitution powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the States or the people. When the federal government seeks to expand its influence in new areas it must find some basis in the Constitution to justify its action. Obviously, the Constitution did not specifically mention the operation of a social insurance system as a power granted to the federal government (Social Security Online – History, [online] SSA; available from Social Security Online)
Prison officials are obligated under the Eighth Amendment to provide prisoners with adequate medical care.1 This principle applies regardless of whether the medical care is provided by governmental employees or by private medical staff under contract with the government.2
In order to prevail on a constitutional claim of inadequate medical care, prisoners must show that prison officials treated them with "deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs.
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file690_25743.pdf
As for your assertions regarding co-ops, leading to Higher costs only for those with pre-existing conditions , that is pre-supposing that everyone in the co-op has a pre-existing condition which would be completely untrue. In fact co-ops would be no different than a company that has 1000 employee's in it for example, in that the base of people in the co-op is made up of many different people and the risk is spread out among those in the co-op. Along with proper oversight and regulation costs can be brought down and these co-ops would florish , in fact I suggest in rural area's especially it would be a boom for some welcome change for others. You wish to promote competetion, imagine the sheer volume of people in rural communities forming these co-ops and the numberof companies comming to meet that demand. I assure you when there is a demand there are companies that will come to meet it. That's competetion, and thats what leads to lower costs.
Group Health has been heralded as an example of health care reform in Washington, D.C., and with the national media in recent weeks.
The sudden attention is attributed to an acclaimed article by Dr. Atul Gawande in The New Yorker magazine about McAllen, Texas, as one of the most expensive health care markets in the country. The attention grew as U.S. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad mentioned the Group Health example when proposing cooperatives as a solution to health care reform.
Group Health in National Spotlight
As for immigration reform, of course I'm not suggesting that you just abandon people on the streets. However, you cannot ignore the fact that illegal immgrants cost this nation 80 Billion dollars a year in healthcare and that is a contributing factor to the high costs of health. What I was pointing out is this, if there are no reforms in place. for example, providing those individuals with a path to citizenship and those that are criminals deport them and secure the border. Over the 10 year cost cycle of the healthcare program your talking close to 800 billion dollars in costs that will offset any savings you make in any public plan. So unless these reforms are not in place, putting in a public plan, be it single payer , or whatever you wish to call it will simply not lead to lower cost, it will lead to less care.
As for the 12 years of republicans not doing anything, I'm not going to engage in a partisan debate over who's party didn't do what for the Americna people only because in this debate it serves no useful purpose. I do find it somewhat amusing though that democrats seem to forget they have been in charge of congress since the 06 election cycle so I could ask you the same thing. In fact, over the year's I could ask that question of dems. many many times.
You do understand Care that when a Govt. enters into the business of providing healthcare insurance for an entire nation and will lead to several things. One is that employers will simply drop healthcare coverage for their employee's unless the Govt. makes it mandatory then you run into that constitutional issue, and send those employee's to the Govt. plan as well as many private insurers simply being unable to compete and many people just moving to a Govt. plan. In fact the Lewin Group hardly a bastion of conservative thinking estimates that 120 million people will eventually switch to a Govt. backed plan. In that environment many will have no choice but to switch , so the very idea , "you can keep your own insurance is a farce".
While I have made it very clear I do think that the whole cost structure of medical needs to be reformed, I do think that it can be done in such a way as to make insurance available for those that need it and want it and without stepping on the liberties of the American people. The fact is Care no matter how badly you or someone else may wish cheap affordable insurance , there are millions of people that do not wish to have insurance and do not wish to be forced into paying for it for your desires. While that may sound cruel to some, in fact this nation is not a nation where anyones desires are any more important than those of their fellow citizens or shouldn't be. It's the main reason why I said that you and people that wish to have a "single payer" or "universal coverage" should really consider a constitutional amendment and bury this thing once and for all.
Another thing I have suggested in other threads is to send it to a state level and let the citizens of those states decide whats best for them and let the Federal Govt. provide incentives through tax rebates whatever to those states that reduce the costs of healthcare through programs. Take Mass for example, they have Universal healthcare and it's the law in that state. I think an issue here too is people seem to think that the Federal Govt. will not tell them what they can and cannot do when it comes to their medical decisions between them and their Doctor and that is the reason why many are so ready to dump insurance companies for the warm and waiting arms of the Federal Govt. What they don't realize is that they will end up right back in the hands of an insurance company because the Federal Govt. is not capable of running an inurance business. You think the Federal Govt. actually runs medicare? If you do your sadly mistaken.
As for John Kerry's Plan I have not taken the time to read it Care and if it is as you say and my suggestions are like his, then I say well sounds like John Kerry is a smart man when it comes to healthcare then..
First, let me say that I appreciate your response Navy!
-Health care costs are too expensive FOR EVERYONE, that is not considered wealthy, not just for those with preexisting conditions.
-Coops taking on all the people with preexisting conditions while leaving the healthy for only the Insurance companies or the majority of the healthy for only insurance companies to benefit, will NOT help those people with preexisting conditions because the price of the coop policy of this sort will be TOO COSTLY.
-If only those with preexisting medical conditions get thrown on to a government run program like medicare, it will be too costly as well.
Why shouldn't ALL insurance companies cover those with medical conditions at a reasonable price? Why have the insurance companies, been able to throw out the very people that need the insurance in the first place just so they can be MORE profitable? The Insurance companies did this with every senior out there...denied them coverage, because the seniors actually needed medical care, after their 20-40 years of paying insurance and being healthy and making the insurance companies rich.
The insurance companies FORCED congress to institute our social program of MEDICARE and they would be doing the same thing now to push off those who need coverage because of preexisting conditions off on to the gvt or the coop....WHICH IS what is going to bankrupt our government.
it is my understanding that coops or gvt plans are needed in states with rural areas that do not have multiple insurer coverage, where there is no competition to keep prices down?
How are these coops going to be instantaneously formed? Do the patients really know enough to form and run and negotiate with hospitals and doctors, a Coop for themselves?
I agree that more has to be done, to allow insurance companies to operate from state to state, but i am not certain how the federal government should do this without usurping the Rights of the States?
-Why do states only allow certain insurance companies to operate in their states? What is it that they felt was important to their citizens that certain insurance companies REFUSE to do, which makes them inelligible to operate in the State?
What protections would the State citizens be giving up in order to give the federal government power in this kind of regulating?
The insurance companies have said they can reduce the cost of ALL health care policies by about 20-25% if they cover ALL people with insurance, that do not have insurance now. I believe this is part of the deal with Obama?
This means, they have used their actuaries and calculated the risks with costs and they figured that another 20-30 million people that are fairly healthy (because the elderly are being covered by medicare and for the most part, many younger, healthier people are uninsured) with an insurance policy would still make them more profitable than they are now, even with reducing the price of everyones health care insurance policy by 20-25%. This is the guts of Obama's plan....get everyone covered, then there will not be the huge emergency room costs put back on to the government or put on to the Hospital who puts the costs on to the health care insurance policies of those that have them....at least that is the simple explanation...
I agree, and this has been a problem for a while....and it is not that the patents protect the drug companies for a while, which they should, but the problem is that these companies file for EXTENSIONS of their patents and extend their patends for 5 to 20 years through these extensions as well. This is something that could have been addressed the past decade but the drug companies are huge campaign donors to congressmen.
Yes, some sort of tort reform needs to take place, but the true root of the problem are the handful of doctors that have committed multiple medical malpractices while continuing to be licenced by the AMA, which brings the price of all medical malpractice insurance on to all the good doctors to an unreasonable cost. Get rid of the BAD, REPEATEDLY DEFICIENT, doctors who continually commit malpractice and isurance prices would go down as well.
A small investment of our government in paying for a portion of the medical school costs for more students to become Doctors would do a great deal for reducing medical costs as well.... we do not have enough doctors to service the baby boomers that are coming in to their sickly years let alone the rest of society so this is giving a SHORTAGE on SUPPLY compared to the demand...thus higher prices for everything.
there is a cost to covering the health care of illegals, but we will not deny them this health care if they are sick...because that would be INHUMANE...so the problem with the illegal's health care costs can only be solved by not having illegals.
I agree. I think there is a rush for a solution to one of the biggest problems we have....
I don't like it one bit...it's too bad that the republicans and dems don't take their time and really think and analyze this through to the end results, with actuaries for the numbers and those with insight on the possible scenarios that could come from every change they want to make.
What EXACTLY do you suggest doing about the healthcare of illegals? Not provide any? How is having them pay for the gvt option or for a health insurance policy, going to hurt things?
If the INSURANCE companies had not lobbied congress to develop medicare so that they did not have to cover people when they got old and sick is where the problem began, and now we are stuck with it.....if the gvt were carrying the healthcare of ALL citizens then it would have a larger pool of HEALTHY and sick and this would make things cheaper for the government and all of us overall...but NONE of you want this and want the insurance companies to take their cut of profits....while putting the sole burden of the UNhealthy on to the gvt, us tax payers...
I don't want to see the quality of our health care reduced which is happening as we speak as well, and there certainly are ways to keep this from happening, if the time and will, are put in to it, like increasing the number of doctors and nurses so that we are not so short, in a time where we really need them.
Well what the heck has TAKEN SO LONG to do these reforms if they are so necessary Navy, where the heck were the Republicans the 12 years they were in control of congress? Where the heck were these INSURANCE companies the past decade or two, why couldn't they reform themselves with the public's interest in mind? Huh?
Why would it steer us to an insurance policy instead of it being like a Medicare plan?
Then we don't have a constitutional RIGHT to medicare or Social security or a permanent standing Army either, according to our constitution right?
I think people should have the ability to buy a Health Insurance policy they can AFFORD, but this simply is not the case....and more and more people, million or more each year, get their health insurance policy cancelled because their employers can no longer afford to pay their portion of these outrageous costs for it....
by the way, did you support Senator Kerry's health care proposal? Because you are advocating HIS PLAN....just an fyi for ya!
Care
Where to start with all that. *laughs* well first let's start from the bottom, no you don't have a "right" in the constitution to healthcare and in fact social security and medicare are not constitutional. What makes them able to skirt by it is the fact that they are seen as forms of "taxes" to promote the general welfare. You know and I know Care that an Army is expressed in the constitution and healthcare is not. In fact the only people entitled to healthcare under the constitution are prisoners.
The constitutional basis of the Social Security Act was uncertain. The basic problem is that under the reserve clause of the Constitution powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the States or the people. When the federal government seeks to expand its influence in new areas it must find some basis in the Constitution to justify its action. Obviously, the Constitution did not specifically mention the operation of a social insurance system as a power granted to the federal government (Social Security Online History, [online] SSA; available from Social Security Online)
Prison officials are obligated under the Eighth Amendment to provide prisoners with adequate medical care.1 This principle applies regardless of whether the medical care is provided by governmental employees or by private medical staff under contract with the government.2
In order to prevail on a constitutional claim of inadequate medical care, prisoners must show that prison officials treated them with "deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs.
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file690_25743.pdf
As for your assertions regarding co-ops, leading to Higher costs only for those with pre-existing conditions , that is pre-supposing that everyone in the co-op has a pre-existing condition which would be completely untrue. In fact co-ops would be no different than a company that has 1000 employee's in it for example, in that the base of people in the co-op is made up of many different people and the risk is spread out among those in the co-op. Along with proper oversight and regulation costs can be brought down and these co-ops would florish , in fact I suggest in rural area's especially it would be a boom for some welcome change for others. You wish to promote competetion, imagine the sheer volume of people in rural communities forming these co-ops and the numberof companies comming to meet that demand. I assure you when there is a demand there are companies that will come to meet it. That's competetion, and thats what leads to lower costs.
Group Health has been heralded as an example of health care reform in Washington, D.C., and with the national media in recent weeks.
The sudden attention is attributed to an acclaimed article by Dr. Atul Gawande in The New Yorker magazine about McAllen, Texas, as one of the most expensive health care markets in the country. The attention grew as U.S. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad mentioned the Group Health example when proposing cooperatives as a solution to health care reform.
Group Health in National Spotlight
As for immigration reform, of course I'm not suggesting that you just abandon people on the streets. However, you cannot ignore the fact that illegal immgrants cost this nation 80 Billion dollars a year in healthcare and that is a contributing factor to the high costs of health. What I was pointing out is this, if there are no reforms in place. for example, providing those individuals with a path to citizenship and those that are criminals deport them and secure the border. Over the 10 year cost cycle of the healthcare program your talking close to 800 billion dollars in costs that will offset any savings you make in any public plan. So unless these reforms are not in place, putting in a public plan, be it single payer , or whatever you wish to call it will simply not lead to lower cost, it will lead to less care.
As for the 12 years of republicans not doing anything, I'm not going to engage in a partisan debate over who's party didn't do what for the Americna people only because in this debate it serves no useful purpose. I do find it somewhat amusing though that democrats seem to forget they have been in charge of congress since the 06 election cycle so I could ask you the same thing. In fact, over the year's I could ask that question of dems. many many times.
You do understand Care that when a Govt. enters into the business of providing healthcare insurance for an entire nation and will lead to several things. One is that employers will simply drop healthcare coverage for their employee's unless the Govt. makes it mandatory then you run into that constitutional issue, and send those employee's to the Govt. plan as well as many private insurers simply being unable to compete and many people just moving to a Govt. plan. In fact the Lewin Group hardly a bastion of conservative thinking estimates that 120 million people will eventually switch to a Govt. backed plan. In that environment many will have no choice but to switch , so the very idea , "you can keep your own insurance is a farce".
While I have made it very clear I do think that the whole cost structure of medical needs to be reformed, I do think that it can be done in such a way as to make insurance available for those that need it and want it and without stepping on the liberties of the American people. The fact is Care no matter how badly you or someone else may wish cheap affordable insurance , there are millions of people that do not wish to have insurance and do not wish to be forced into paying for it for your desires. While that may sound cruel to some, in fact this nation is not a nation where anyones desires are any more important than those of their fellow citizens or shouldn't be. It's the main reason why I said that you and people that wish to have a "single payer" or "universal coverage" should really consider a constitutional amendment and bury this thing once and for all.
Another thing I have suggested in other threads is to send it to a state level and let the citizens of those states decide whats best for them and let the Federal Govt. provide incentives through tax rebates whatever to those states that reduce the costs of healthcare through programs. Take Mass for example, they have Universal healthcare and it's the law in that state. I think an issue here too is people seem to think that the Federal Govt. will not tell them what they can and cannot do when it comes to their medical decisions between them and their Doctor and that is the reason why many are so ready to dump insurance companies for the warm and waiting arms of the Federal Govt. What they don't realize is that they will end up right back in the hands of an insurance company because the Federal Govt. is not capable of running an inurance business. You think the Federal Govt. actually runs medicare? If you do your sadly mistaken.
As for John Kerry's Plan I have not taken the time to read it Care and if it is as you say and my suggestions are like his, then I say well sounds like John Kerry is a smart man when it comes to healthcare then..
Tis true that I don't have ANY MORE SAY than you do....but everyone does have a say, not only you and those who agree with you, no?
care
navy,
What was the constitutional reasons for prisoners having this right? Would it relate to other citizens as well?
regardless, I am not arguing that there is a 'right' to any of these reforms, guaranteed by the constitution and I see this as a strawman on your part...
revised...
what does the 8th amendment say? need to look it up....
navy,
What was the constitutional reasons for prisoners having this right? Would it relate to other citizens as well?
regardless, I am not arguing that there is a 'right' to any of these reforms, guaranteed by the constitution and I see this as a strawman on your part...
revised...
what does the 8th amendment say? need to look it up....
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
429 U.S. 97
Estelle v. Gamble
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 75-929 Argued: October 5, 1976 --- Decided: November 30, 1976
Respondent state inmate brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against petitioners, the state corrections department medical director (Gray) and two correctional officials, claiming that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment for inadequate treatment of a back injury assertedly sustained while he was engaged in prison work. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals held that the alleged insufficiency of the medical treatment required reinstatement of the complaint.
Held: Deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner's serious illness or injury constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contravening the Eighth Amendment. Here, however, respondent's claims against Gray do not suggest such indifference, the allegations revealing that Gray and other medical personnel saw respondent on 17 occasions during a 3-month span and treated his injury and other problems. The failure to perform an X-ray or to use additional diagnostic techniques does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, but is, at most, medical malpractice cognizable in the state courts. The question whether respondent has stated a constitutional claim against the other petitioners, the Director of the Department of Corrections and the warden of the prison, was not separately evaluated by the Court of Appeals, and should be considered on remand. Pp. 101-108.
516 F.2d 937, reversed and remanded.
Estelle v. Gamble - Wikisource
It's a valid argument Care, in that you as a citizen do not a specific right to "healthcare" spelled out in the constitution. Those rights not spelled out in the constitution are reserved for the "PEOPLE" or the "STATES" thats you and me and thats in the 10th Amendment. So given that fact, the Federal Govt. is NOT responsible to provide you with that right. Unless, you as a citizen AMEND the constitution for it to say otherwise,.
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy;
Are you unclear on what that means Care? it means that the money cannot be used for a term longer than than two years. Thus the reason why the DoD has a budget that must be approved by congress each year...
I don't have a problem with the public option to insurance companies being a coop.
navy, why does the prisoner get the right to have a doctor visit him for his ailments, paid for by the tax payer, while the tax payer does not get the same privilege?
Not that I am arguing for health care provided for the general welfare of its citizens by our government is a right or something that the federal government has the authority to do....but just being devil's advocate, as usual....
